An examination of popular fun feminist arguments, from a radical perspective.

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

Are Some Sex Acts "More Equal" Than Others?

A
previous post of mine titled “How Pornographic is too Pornographic” was added
to a feminism-related page on the website, Reddit. One version of it received
ten comments. Unfortunately I cannot find that version now, but in this post I
will respond to the arguments put forward in the comments, as best as I can.As
always, I invite my readers, including those opposed to my views, to comment on
my blog directly so that I can respond more easily. Do try to respond with actual arguments rather than just dismissals.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IntroductionLiberals often say that they view all consensual sex
acts as equal. However, in this post I
stated that liberals view aggressive, degrading or otherwise anti-egalitarian
sexual activities, such as sadomasochism (or BDSM as it is often labelled), as
more subversive, liberating and praiseworthy than so-called “vanilla” sex. These
two viewpoints contradict each other, yet they are clearly both held by
liberals.

Conflicts within the ideology of liberal feminists are
their problem, not mine. This post will instead focus on the claim that anti-egalitarian
sexuality is superior to egalitarian sexuality and attempt to demonstrate that liberals, on some
level, adhere to this claim (or at least talk and act as
though they do), regardless of whatever else they say or believe.Insulting LanguageI am generally not that
picky with regard to language use. I despise the way liberals use perceived
errors in speech or writing (e.g. stating that Christopher Columbus discovered
Latin America or listing multiple categories without listing every combination
of those categories, as Patricia Arquette did)
as an excuse to vilify their political opponents.However, in this situation,
I am not referring to the spontaneous word choices of an individual, but to
terms regularly used by movements. I also will not be referring to instances
when someone failed to mention a particular group. Is literally denying the existence
of Native Americans or non-white women a common position among activists that
we should be worried about? I will let my readers decide. Personally, I am more
concerned with what people do say than what they do not say, particularly when
their words convey value judgements.Firstly, there is the
term “vanilla”, which is used by practitioners of sadomasochist sex to describe
those who do not practice it. Liberals in general are also expected to employ
this term (e.g. by acknowledging their “vanilla-privilege”). They may argue
that the term means “conventional” sex, but in practice it is used to refer to
practices which do not involve any anti-egalitarian (or otherwise pornographic,
according to the criteria I lay out in the first section of this post) elements.According to Google, “vanilla”
(when not used to describe food) means “having
no special or extra features; ordinary or standard”.By using the word, liberals imply that people
who do not practice sadomasochism have boring, conformist sexualities. It is
thus logically inconsistent for liberals to state that there is “nothing wrong
with vanilla sex”, unless they believe that dullness and ordinariness are positive
or neutral traits. They recognise that egalitarian sex is not immoral (a
position which means little, coming from liberals), but they do imply that it
is the inferior sexuality.Not
everyone who has “vanilla” sex views it as conventional and uninteresting. Thus
it is insulting for liberals to insinuate that it is. In fact,
domination and submission is the sexual convention within our highly
hierarchical society. Radical feminists (particularly lesbian feminists) often
reject such practices out of a desire to defy sexual norms. However, I have
seen people use the term vanilla to proudly express their preference for egalitarian sex. I am not sure how I feel about
such uses of the term, but I do acknowledge that it did not start out as an insult. Originally it described tasty desserts, which are favoured
by a somewhat select group of people (chocolate was the favourite when I was a
kid, not vanilla). Nonetheless, the condescending intentions of the term “vanilla”,
as used by sadomasochists, are clear.

Meanwhile, liberals use
terms like “subversive” and “liberating”, along with gushing euphemisms like
“spice-up your sex life” to refer to sadomasochistic sex acts. To “subvert” is
to “undermine the power and authority” of a social system. Thus those who label
sadomasochism as “subversive” are claiming that it will contribute to the
destruction of patriarchy (or some other oppressive system). This is grand
praise indeed.While
liberals do not explicitly condemn egalitarian sex, complimenting one behaviour
and not another is also discriminatory. Until liberals start saying that loving,
egalitarian sex liberates women and subverts patriarchy, with the same
frequency that they heaps such praise upon sadomasochism, pornography, casual
sex, etc., I think it is reasonable to claim that they view the former as
inferior, yet acceptable for those weak, boring people who cannot handle “spiced-up”
sex.Sadomasochist, “Feminist” PornographyPornography that
features sadomasochism is more likely to win an award for its supposed “feminism”.
In case you think I am speculating, based on the contents of previous
recipients of the “feminist” pornography award, I am not. I neither know, nor
care, which videos got the “award”. This information comes from the website of the award. Its creators say they “like
to include films
that contain kink, BDSM, and consensual non-consent” when choosing films for
the award. It seems they favour pornographic videos (which are not “films”, in
my view) that feature (outright) sadomasochism over those that do not.By
pointing out that the sex industry and its liberal allies reward
sadomasochistic pornography over “vanilla” pornography, I am not suggesting
that non-sadomasochist pornography should be given awards or endorsements, nor
am I suggesting that such videos feature genuinely loving, egalitarian sex. If
I had my way, there would be no pornography awards to begin with. However, by excluding
a video from receiving a “feminist” pornography award (or at least lowering the
probability that it will receive it), due to its lack of sadomasochism, they
are implying that some sexual activities (“vanilla” ones) are less feminist or
less worthy of celebration, thus contradicting their belief that all consensual
sex acts are equal.An
even more frightening aspect of the aforementioned site is its claim that the
pornography selected for the award is “for everyone”. You read that right,
everyone. They do not even have the decency to limit it to adults. They do
however admit that “not all films are for all audiences” and that no one film can
“include everyone”. I find the latter phrase disturbing. I do not know what the
intended meaning is, but the phrasing makes it sound like they want audiences
to be directly involved in pornography. Whether they do or not, their position seems to
be that while it is okay to dislike some pornography, everyone will like at
least one kind.If
someone claimed that romantic comedies or egalitarian, loving relationships
were for everybody, liberals would be outraged. They think it is perfectly fine
to completely reject non-pornographic depictions of sex (I myself take issue
with some of the messages promoted by romance films, but I do not believe that
they are inherently a bad thing), but cannot conceive of somebody rejecting
pornography in all its forms. This is further evidence of a double standard
within liberalism, one which favours pornography and the kind of loveless, aggressive
sex that it features over alternatives.So What If All Sex Acts Are Equal?While
I have provided evidence that liberals perceive sadomasochism as more
subversive, rebellious, exciting and “spiced up” than the egalitarian
alternatives, the “all (consensual) sex acts are equal” idea is nonetheless
part of official liberal dogma. The view is one I am familiar with, but not one
which I think can be rationally defended. I addressed it briefly in this post (leave
a comment or send a message if you want to know where) and in an often
re-blogged section of this one, dealing with
the liberal understanding of equality.Simply
put, I do not believe that all consensual sex acts are equal and I do not
equate human equality with granting equal approval to all behaviours. I think
there are many standards, besides consent and pleasure, by which sex acts can
be evaluated. These include egalitarianism, gentleness, respect and genuine,
personality-based love (all of which have been discussed countless times on this
blog). Then there is
my oh-so-oppressive belief that sex acts should not cause death (discussed here) and that those which do are inferior, what a
crazy thing to think, right?As
for the Black Jack analogy (put forward inthis post), I think it still stands, whether liberals think sadomasochism is
better than egalitarian sex or not. If instead of being told to aim for a score
of twenty-one, Black Jack players were instead allowed to pick their own target
score and players chose twenty-one as their score (because they personally
liked it) many of those players would likely end up going over twenty-one. If
you aim to make your sex acts more rape-like (i.e. more violent,
dominating and degrading) without actually committing rape, you might just end
up crossing the line. You are far less likely to cross the line if you stay far
away from it by aiming for gentleness, equality, respect and love instead.One
premise that is essential to my Black Jack analogy is the claim that “sadomasochism
is rape-like”. This statement is difficult to refute (though I nonetheless
challenge my readers to try), given the existence of consensual non-consent
(mentioned in the “feminist” pornography award quote above), which sounds a lot
like “consensual rape” to me (Orwell must be rolling over in his grave). From
what I understand, consensual non-consent involves a submissive agreeing to be
forced into a sex act at some future point (and not being allowed to withdraw from
it). The practice is a subject for another post. All I will say for now is that
those who reward pornographers who practice and promote such acts (instead of distancing
themselves from them) have little regard for logic and even less regard for
human rights.Another
possible weakness in the analogy is that Black Jacks involves an element of
chance, while committing rape is a decision (made mostly by males). With enough
willpower, a man can always decide not to commit rape, but increasing the
incentive to commit rape and decreasing the internal incentive against it, will
make the decision harder. Sadomasochist simulations of rape result in both of
these things. They convince the pretend rapists (that is, after all, what the
dominants in such situations are) that committing rape would be a pleasurable
experience for both them and their victim (masochistic pretend victims often do
end up enjoying it).Few men make it their life ambition to become
rapists. It is something they move towards over time. While they always have
the option of refusing to rape, they would be wise not to give themselves
sexual incentives in favour of it. Why would any decent person want to encourage
oneself to commit rape?ConclusionSo
how do liberal feminists explain the fact that they constantly make the “all
sex acts are equal” claim, while also saying and doing things (such as giving
out awards) which suggest that violent, degrading (or as they put it “subversive”)
sex is the best kind? I do not like to
accuse people of lying, unless I have strong evidence that they are, but I do
not understand how liberals can simultaneously adhere to these two views, nor
am I, as an opponent of liberal feminism, required to understand this
contradiction. Perhaps these claims are preached by different sections
of the movement.It
is also possible that the “all sex acts are equal” position is their conscious view, which they defend with (attempts at) rational arguments, while the view that
sadomasochism is superior is more subconscious. They have even made non-sadomasochists feel that their image as a "modern" (and presumably "feminist") woman may be compromised by their “failure” to participate in such practices (as evidenced by this entertaining article). The fact that the author felt the need to reclaim "vanilla sex" suggests that the dominant belief in our culture is that all “empowered”, “sexually liberated” women should be able to
enjoy sadomasochism. It seems that while liberals have, on an intellectual
level, accepted the view that all sex acts are equal, they cannot help but make value judgements, as all humans do. The problem is that they favour dangerous and hierarchical forms of sex, over those which are more consistant with egalitarian ideals.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, the title is a reference to the famous
Animal Farm quote. I would not dare suggest that I came up with something so
brilliant on my own.

8 comments:

I know this wasn't the main subject of your entry (which I agree with 100%), but I never thought of using the term vanilla as a point of pride. That's very interesting, and the fact that I find it interesting is in itself a sad statement about the state of our thinking about sex (that egalitarian sex is so marginalized that someone being proud of it is interesting).

I think a genuinely loving, egalitarian sex life is something to be proud of (as is a life free from sex, I do not wish to discriminate against genuine asexuals.) It is difficult to practice such a sexuality when one is surrounded by a culture which promotes the opposite and people who expect the opposite. Even many self-proclaimed "vanilla" people do not practice sex in ways that I would consider egalitarian (I have even since liberals label oral and anal sex as "vanilla", because it is "conventional"). I have no idea whether you are living an egalitarian sex life or not, but bare in mind that there is more to it than not practicing sadomasochism.

Although, you are right, the fact that people feel the need to write articles (like this one http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/emily-buchanan/sex-advice-vanilla-sex_b_3783996.html, which I was going to link to in my post but forgot to) about how being vanilla is okay is a sad statement on the growing dominance of anti-egalitarian sex. On the bright side, these kinds of articles may encourage women to get involved in feminist activism aimed at defending love and equality.

Im not trying to fuck with you. Most of the time I agree with your thinking, and I consider myself an antinatalist and a feminist. But I also dont think its ethically acceptable to farm, torture and kill sentient beings. You seem to think that it is, and I want to understand your reasoning.

Follow

About Me

I am a radical leftist who does not belong to any political party or organisation (hence the name "Independent Radical.) The labels I use to describe my political ideology are "revolutionary socialist" and "communist". My political and philosophical views have also been influenced by radical feminism, the atheist movement, the sceptic movement, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. I do not claim to represent any of these movements, but I hope that those who identify with them will get something out of my blog.
I have no interest in appealing to liberal feminists, liberals in general, queer theorists, libertarians, post-modernists or anyone else who thinks that "anything goes" with regard to questions of objective reality or ethical behaviour. I am an unashamed truth-seeker and moralist. If that offends you, do not read my posts.